zlacker

>If you have code that happens to be identical to some else's code or implements someone's proprietary algorithm, you're going to lose in court even if you claim an "AI" gave it to you.

Not for a dozen lines here or there, even if it could be found and identified in a massive code base. That’s like quoting a paragraph of a book in another book, non infringing.

For the second half of your comment it sounds like you’re saying you got results that were too good to be AI- that’s a bit “no true Scotsman”, at least without more detail. But implementing an algorithm, even a complex one, is very much something an LLM can do. Algorithms are much better defined and scoped natural language, and LLMs do a reasonable job of translating to languages. An algorithm is a narrow subset of that task type with better defined context and syntax.

>>ineeda+(OP)
What will happen when company A implements algorithm X based on AI output, company B does the same and company A claims that it is proprietary code and takes company B to court?

>>ozfive+Dc
What has happened when the same thing happens without AI involved?

>>ineeda+(OP)
> Not for a dozen lines here or there, even if it could be found and identified in a massive code base. That’s like quoting a paragraph of a book in another book, non infringing.

It's potentially non-infringing in a book if you quote it in a plausible way, and properly.

If you copy&paste a paragraph from another book into yours, it's infringing, and a career-ending scandal. There's plenty of precedent on that.

Just like if you manually copied a function out of some GPL code and pasted it into your own.

Or if you had an LLM do it for you.

>>_w1tm+mf
Yep, it’s not a brand-new problem. I just wonder if AI is going to turbocharge the odds of these disputes popping up.